Poll: How long do you think it will take till Cable offers Ala Cart channels like Canada does? :) - Page 3 - AVS Forum
View Poll Results: How long do you think it will take till Cable offers Ala Cart channels like Canada does?
Soon as we are heading in the same direction Canada was until they were forced 3 3.85%
It will happen but it may still be awhile 14 17.95%
They are probably already talking about considering it as an option 2 2.56%
No chance. It will be a cold day in hell before US companies give in 59 75.64%
Voters: 78. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 70 Old 03-09-2013, 09:13 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,406
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoilerJim View Post

You don't think the manager of the fast food restaurant would give you a nice little discount if you bought one of everything on the menu? And, ala carte might work if, as in the restaurant example, you only want ONE burger (channel). Most of us (actually, I'm guessing ALL) want to watch multiple channels although we may have one or two favorites.
Actually, a better example for restaurants would be something like this:

If you just want a single burger, you can pay for a burger and nothing else. It's cheaper on its own.

However, you can usually add a drink and a couple of side dishes for a small amount more.

If you can't decide on one thing, some restaurants have "sampler" platters, where you might pay more than the one burger, but you get to taste a bit of several different mini burgers, each for less than each whole one would cost individually.

The last example is the way most people consume TV - they take little bits from several different channels instead of sitting on on channel all day long. By getting the big platter of different ones, it lets you nibble from each one without paying the cost of one channel on its own.

Now, if you do sit on one channel all day long, then buying that one channel is the perfect solution for you. For those who want their local stations and a handful of cable channels, it starts costing close enough to a package that it's worth it to just have the option of watching those other channels.

I know myself, the channels I primarily watch tend to change season to season. At one point, it was all about SciFi (before it was syfy) TNT and FX. Then it was USA and TBS. Now it's AMC and FX. Who knows what it will be next.
jh20001 likes this.
NetworkTV is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 70 Old 03-09-2013, 09:23 AM
Yrd
AVS Special Member
 
Yrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Elkton, MD
Posts: 2,759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 159
I don't have favorite channels, I have favorite shows. I don't care that HBO makes Game of Thrones, or AMC makes Walking Dead. If both of those shows moved to Lifetime, I would be happy. I wouldn't care if I only had 1 channel. I want to watch the shows I like whenever I want. An on demand system, where you can just choose what show you want to watch, regardless of time slots I think should be how TV is done. A lot like a DVR, except I shouldn't have to DVR it. I could look through the list of shows and pick what I want to watch.

A lot like hulu and netflix, but through the cable/dish provider instead. Show/filmmakers wouldn't have to worry about time issues either. Like a lot of these shows skip the intro tunes now because the adverts are taking too much time up. Another thing is commercial breaks. Sometimes hulu will give you an option of watching a big commercial at the front of the show then no commercial breaks. That's another thing I would love to be default.

XBL Gamertag- Yrd
PSN - Yerd

Steam - Yrd

Yrd is offline  
post #63 of 70 Old 03-09-2013, 09:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Nayan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Melbourne, FL
Posts: 2,296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 133
I agree with Network. I don't just sit on one channel all day. I like of like the buffet of channels that let's me sample a little of this and a little of that. I've found some great programming this way (well, great to me anyway!) and I probably would have never found it if I didn't have the choice.

I'm a 'hooker' and a knitter. I guess that makes me bi-stitchual :). Crap I say
Nayan is offline  
post #64 of 70 Old 03-09-2013, 10:10 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
jh20001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoilerJim View Post

You don't think the manager of the fast food restaurant would give you a nice little discount if you bought one of everything on the menu? And, ala carte might work if, as in the restaurant example, you only want ONE burger (channel). Most of us (actually, I'm guessing ALL) want to watch multiple channels although we may have one or two favorites.

Well then find a happy compromise. Offer the ability to choose your own channels at a cheaper price (up to so many ala cart channels...the max being reasonable), and beyond that you can choose the large package deals. That way those of us that don't watch enough TV or channels to justify paying for 100+ channels for the 5 we need...can have what we want. Those who have members in the house that watch all sorts of channels, they can subscribe to the bigger packages.

My debate is the fact that there is no choice. It doesn't matter if you watch 30+ channels every month within a house....or 1-5.....you can't get *any* of them unless you at least subscribe to 100+ channels (the basic packages)....and it works the same for both parties. I do miss CNBC, and I do miss the history channel and comedy central......but the sacrifice was well worth it (and even the history channel has been polluted by reality TV anyways).

There has to be a compromise. A happy selection where everyone can feel confident in what they are paying for. I personally, I only want that one burger in the menu (maybe some fries -_^).
jh20001 is offline  
post #65 of 70 Old 03-09-2013, 11:04 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,406
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by jh20001 View Post

Well then find a happy compromise. Offer the ability to choose your own channels at a cheaper price (up to so many ala cart channels...the max being reasonable), and beyond that you can choose the large package deals. That way those of us that don't watch enough TV or channels to justify paying for 100+ channels for the 5 we need...can have what we want. Those who have members in the house that watch all sorts of channels, they can subscribe to the bigger packages.

My debate is the fact that there is no choice. It doesn't matter if you watch 30+ channels every month within a house....or 1-5.....you can't get *any* of them unless you at least subscribe to 100+ channels (the basic packages)....and it works the same for both parties. I do miss CNBC, and I do miss the history channel and comedy central......but the sacrifice was well worth it (and even the history channel has been polluted by reality TV anyways).

There has to be a compromise. A happy selection where everyone can feel confident in what they are paying for. I personally, I only want that one burger in the menu (maybe some fries -_^).
I don't think that's unreasonable, but it won't happen right now. There are still far too many people that are willing to pay for the current system for anything to change.

Now, should the recession continue for another decade and more people start looking to save money by dumping those packages, then you might see some changes. Until then, the cable companies are content to not fight the media companies for the right to split things up and potentially not get the deals they currently do for those channel groupings. It will take getting a lot fewer subscriber fees to get the media companies to soften up to the idea. Then, the cable companies might have some amunition to offer alternative options.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #66 of 70 Old 03-10-2013, 08:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Thomas Desmond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Plano, TX, USA
Posts: 2,334
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

I don't think that's unreasonable, but it won't happen right now. There are still far too many people that are willing to pay for the current system for anything to change.

Now, should the recession continue for another decade and more people start looking to save money by dumping those packages, then you might see some changes. Until then, the cable companies are content to not fight the media companies for the right to split things up and potentially not get the deals they currently do for those channel groupings. It will take getting a lot fewer subscriber fees to get the media companies to soften up to the idea. Then, the cable companies might have some amunition to offer alternative options.

It won't necessarily take another decade of recession -- instead, another decade of cost increases that run well above general inflation might do the trick. Especially when combined with the apparent tendency for younger households to be less interested in paying for cable or satellite than their older counterparts.

What's needed is some cost discipline in the industry...and absent a la carte, I don't really see that happening. Really, what's the incentive to keep ESPN from continuing to jack up its rates?
Thomas Desmond is offline  
post #67 of 70 Old 03-12-2013, 02:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Macon, GA
Posts: 1,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Desmond View Post


What's needed is some cost discipline in the industry...and absent a la carte, I don't really see that happening. Really, what's the incentive to keep ESPN from continuing to jack up its rates?

I agree. ESPN is the main cable channel contributing to this problem. They are a greedy monopoly. If they could they would put ex lax in the water supply and corner the market on toilet paper.

Broadcast TV - a vital national public resource
Jedi Master is offline  
post #68 of 70 Old 03-12-2013, 04:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: In the ATL
Posts: 4,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 151
ESPN does not have a monopoly over sports programming, there's plenty of competition for the events out there. They just happen to have more money to throw around than most because of the subscriber cash cow base, which is why the MSOs should force them onto their own tier with all the other sports channels. Not that it's ever going to happen.

Yes, I hate it for me since I'm a big sports fan, but I hate it just as much that a lot of people are pissed and dropping pay TV because they don't want to subsidize sports for folks like me.
slowbiscuit is offline  
post #69 of 70 Old 03-12-2013, 07:05 AM
Senior Member
 
borntocoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 279
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 18
I remember when cable came to my Neighborhood a little over 30 years ago. ESPN was included in the "Basic" Package ($7.99 a Month). for $21.00 a month you got everything they offered, including the three "Premium" Channels (HBO, Showtime and The Movie Channel). At that time ESPN showed mostly Minor League Stuff such as NCAA Division II and III Football Games, Midget Car Racing and "Australian Rules Football", among other things. Today they have become a Titan, and have secured Big League Games. Of course to secure these big-league games they have had to spend the Gigabucks, and the costs are passed on to subscribers, who have to pay whether or not they watch them. Of course, those who don't watch sports aren't too happy with having to pay for them, and that's why so many of us want a-la-carte programming. People are only willing to spend so much, and if something gets too costly people will give it up and purchase something cheaper to replace it. There is a point where people will stop paying for something, Pay-TV may very well find themselves "Pricing themselves off the market".
borntocoast is offline  
post #70 of 70 Old 03-12-2013, 10:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tighr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 3,221
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntocoast View Post

Today they have become a Titan, and have secured Big League Games. Of course to secure these big-league games they have had to spend the Gigabucks, and the costs are passed on to subscribers, who have to pay whether or not they watch them.
One other thing to consider is that the leagues have started to monetize their product. 30 years ago, you could not watch every NCAA Division 1 football game, because not every game was even televised. There are many games from years past that will never be seen again because they don't exist on tape, unless the school itself was recording it for practice tape-sessions. But now the SEC, Big12, B1G, Pac12, ACC all have contracts with networks, be it ESPN, Fox Sports, whomever. They have a product and they've monetized it.

On the one hand, that's good for fans. On the other, it costs big money to produce and broadcast 60 different games a week.

~Tighr: Not helping the situation since 1983

tighr is offline  
Reply HDTV Programming

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off